To George Bentham   6 September 1870

6/9/70

 

By last mail, dear Mr Bentham, and by this, I sent you the continuation of the brief emendatory remarks on the pages of the 5th volume, which you kindly forwarded to me.1 This new volume will be an other glorious contribution of yours to phytography — it is ony a pity, that the Monochlamydeae could not all get into one volume, as this brings the necessity about of mixing Dicotyledoneae & Monocotyledoneae in the next. I have an idea, that the remaining Monochlamydeae i.e. Euphorbiaceae, Urticeae, Santalac, Thymeleae, Casuar, Conif & the sundry small orders will still contain nearly 500 species, as I estimate the Euphorbiaceae alone at 150, and thus it has suggested itself to me, whether it might not be better to confine the 6th vol to Dicotyledoneae by bringing up the supplemental species of Thalamiflorae & Calyciflorae, about one hundred now. This might be sufficient to fill a volume before the Monocotyledoneae are commenced. It is a mere suggestion, but if you think it worthy of acting on it I will send you all the supplemental species of Dicotyledoneae in time. Supplemental Geographicnotes could best stand over til the end of the work.

Mr Forrest is expected to arrive in a few days at Melbourne, and I anticipate a few actual novelties will be in his collection of plants from the Great Bight.2 At all events he will give us more information on the range of some species westerly and others easterly. He is to stay in my home here, when we will discuss fully all the exploration questions, with a view of further geographic movements of his, particularly from the sources of the Murchison to the S3 sources of the Roper River.

Your generic review of Compositae will be a real boon, but even to you it will be a herculean task.4

Trusting that you will have enjoyed your summer trip, and that your health will continue firm,

I remain your very regardful

Ferd. von Mueller

 

Calyciflorae

Casuarineae

Compositae

Conifereae

Dicotyledoneae

Euphorbiaceae

Monochlamydeae

Monocotyledoneae

Santalaceae

Thalamiflorae

Thymeleae

Urticeae

 
1
The proof sheets containing Bentham (1863-78), vol. 5, pp. 257-384 or 400 were sent in June; see G. Bentham to M, 9 June 1870. The 'emendatory remarks' sent with the previous mail have not been found. See M to G. Bentham, September 1870 (in this edition as 70-09-00) for the comments sent with 'this mail'.
2
See Forrest (1875), part II. M did not publish a report on the botany of this expedition, but described new species in several places, e.g ., Eremophila weldii , B70.12.03, p. 109; Adenanthos forrestii , B 82.10.04.
3
S (= Southern?) interlined .
4
Bentham & Hooker (1862-83), vol. 2, part 1, pp. 163-533; Bentham was the author of this part.

Please cite as “FVM-70-09-06,” in Correspondence of Ferdinand von Mueller, edited by R.W. Home, Thomas A. Darragh, A.M. Lucas, Sara Maroske, D.M. Sinkora†, J.H. Voigt† and Monika Wells accessed on 20 April 2024, https://epsilon.ac.uk/view/vonmueller/letters/70-09-06